>Bug 656 [1] discusses an editorial note in the HTML Techniques [2].
>The question is if we need to continue to recommend that authors
>provide contextual clues in nested lists for the benefit of
>technologies that do not represent their structure adequately.
Then those user agents are broken. Lists have been part of HTML since
version 2.0, which even states that lists may be nested.
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec.html#SEC5.6>
>They may be used in combination; for example, a OL [sic] may be
>nested in an LI element of a UL.
It staggers the imagination that a user agent could not understand
lists. That would be especially upsetting now that
standards-compliant designers are using styled ordered lists for
navigation.
I also question the testing here: Were valid HTML files used? And
were definition lists also tested?
Some of my own files are extreme examples of lists within lists
(something like ul li dl dt dd is not inconceivable in my markup);
these could be used, if I could find them.
Just in general, I don't think we should give any freebies at all to
user agents that fail to implement the HTML spec. CSS is different,
of course, since it's a moving target and the permutations are
astronomical.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org | <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Expect criticism if you top-post